ALTERING BRANDS AND MARKS. 187 



declarations of the owner and others are not sufficient to show 

 want of consent.^*^ 



In the indictment it is not necessary to set forth the original 

 mark nor in what manner the alteration was made.^** But 

 where a particular method of alteration is alleged, it must be 

 proved as averred.^®'' Putting a dififerent brand on an ani- 

 mal with intent to claim it, though without defacing the 

 former brand, is a violation of the statute.^ ^* So an altera- 

 tion may be effected by merely clipping the hair at the orig- 

 inal brand so as to change it to a new one. "The questions 

 are, was the act done with a fraudulent intent, and has the 

 brand been changed or altered from what it was to another 

 and different brand? . . . If so, it matters not by what means 

 the alteration was effected ; the offense is complete." ^®* 



Where the only evidence was that the lamb was found in 

 an open wood with the mark of the owner changed to that 

 of the defendant, the conviction was set aside.^''" The evi- 

 dence must show the identity of the animals marked.^'^^ 



Where the indictment alleged the horse to be the property 

 of an estate, this was held bad.^''^ So, where it simply 

 charged the offense of marking a hog without using the stat- 

 utory words "wilfully and knowingly." ^''^ 



The subject of brands and marks as evidence of ownership 

 has been already considered.^''* 



61. Civil Bemedies; Measure of Damages. — The usual civil 

 actions may of course be brought in cases of unlawful depriva- 

 tion or detention of animals, and the ordinary defences may 



'" West V. State, 32 Tex. 651. 



"' State V. O'Neal, 7 Ired. L. (N. C.) 251. And see State v. Stelly, 

 supra. 

 "' Davis V. State, 13 Tex. App. 215. 



"" Atzroth V. State, 10 Fla. 207; Linney v. State, 6 Tex. i. 

 "" Slaughter v. State, 7 Tex. App. 123. 



™ Dobson V. State, 67 Miss. 330. And see Mizell v. State, 38 Fla. 20. 

 " Peo. V. Swasey, 6 Utah 93. "" Peo. v. Hall, 19 Cal. 425- 

 "= State V. Roberts, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 139- 

 "* See § 18, supra. 



